Hi PowerScore -
So I actually got D (the correct answer) on this one, but on an untimed do-over, I ended up switching to B. I’m posting this on here (at least at the time of submitting this post) since none of the above responses on this thread address incorrect answer B in particular and would like clarification on why B is incorrect.
What led me to B on my untimed do-over is that, in the stimulus, the Andersens’ income this year is average for families. It doesn’t say “real income” explicitly, defined as adjusted for inflation per the first sentence, and thought, “ok, well, the stimulus seems to equate “Andersens’ family income is average for families” with “Andersens’
real family income”.
If I’m interpreting B correctly, then it would seem like B, when added, would result in something like:
“...this year the Andersens’ real family income is average → their income must have increased over the last five years”. On the premise that the real average income for families, according to government statistics, has risen over the past five years.
After reading that, I feel like this would commit a whole-to-part flaw (as alluded to in another earlier post on this thread), because the premise is on the
average of families, and then taking that quality (lower after five years) applicable to the
whole (“families'') and applying to the Andersens’,
only one member of the whole. Thus, B seems to still leave the argument to be flawed, even after accounting for inflation with respect to the Andersens’ income.
So, my question is: is that (the above explanation) why B is incorrect?
For what it’s worth: here was my line of thinking into D during my timed section on the first attempt, if this makes a difference (either to whoever takes this question or anyone reading this explanation in the future, and if this is correct):
(Paraphrased): “...the Andersen family’s real income must have gone up over the previous five years”.
My thoughts: “Must?! Huh?! What do you mean “the Andersens’ income MUST have gone up?! What?!”
Anyway, after taking a breath to chill out after seeing that…
This is a Flaw in the Reasoning question, and I admittedly didn’t come up with a pre-phrase leading to the answer choices, but my mindset was: the answer choice would make it more likely that the Andersens’ real income didn’t necessarily increase over the last five years (in other words, attacking the conclusion by accounting for the logical opposite of the stated conclusion). The stimulus only states that the real average income for families went up over five years. But if the Andersens’ real income was ABOVE average...well, nothing in the stimulus states what must happen if one’s family’s real income is above-average, right?
Since it seems like there is no certainty over what MUST happen in the above average-group, and that, as one of the earlier posts addressed, it’s not clear whether the Andersens would still be part of that “average” group, then it leaves open that possibility that the Andersens’ income may not have increased over the last five years. That’s why I chose D, at least in my timed attempt.
Thanks very much for your assistance with this!
-Dustine B. (“AnimalCrossingLSATer”)
P.S. My last few posts on the forum have been awfully long (and with a few grammatical typos), so thank you so much for taking the time to read these! I find that asking questions with a detailed explanation of my thought process would potentially give me the most benefit as a user of this forum. Happy to condense my posts in the future.